I am antiabortion because I am an atheist

[cyberateos]

Miss:

However, personally and from a rational standpoint, I am for abortion as it A)keeps the population down and B)is possibly an act of mercy since it prevents a human from (most likely inevitable) suffering and actually having to consciously deal with death.

If you are so much concerned for keeping the population down, let`s apply death penalty to abortionist mothers and doctros.

[rlrose328]

I am not in favor of abortion at all, but I will not protest it nor will I vote to ban it. It's not my place to say what a woman can and can't do with her body. In a perfect world, the father would be involved in the process and women would carry babies to term and give them to other families to raise if they don't want them.  Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.  It's messy and sometimes people have to do desperate acts to survive.

I'm curious why people on this forum talk about the body rights of women.  When a woman gets pregnant, can she not realize that the decision of her body is no longer just about her wants/desires?  Who speaks for the unborn child?  Why are they allowed to decide the fate of an entire life?  We've propped up our government to intervene all the time to prevent abuse to children already born, why do we not extend this to the unborn, who don't even have the ability to speak for themselves?

Why does the fetus/unborn child/collection of cells have more rights than the existing living/breathing individual with a functioning brain and life?  By all means, the fetus should have a chance to complete it's growth cycle... but it's not my place to say she HAS to let it happen within her own body.  Why don't YOU see that??  I am not a baby machine that can be turned on and turned off as the general public sees fit.  This is a MASSIVE grey area all the way around.  I support a woman's right to choose how she conducts business within her womb.  If she wishes to be paid to have sex with it, I support that.  If she wishes to sew it shut, I support that, too.  (NOTE I said if SHE wishes to do so... not the involuntary genital mutilation done in some countries... I chose that scenario to make a point, nothing more.)  I would also appreciate the same choice afforded me were I to choose to do something, too.  Having the government dictate what I can and can't do with my body is much the same as having the Christians tell me I'll go to hell for having sex before I marry.  Not their business what I do in my bedroom.  Not their business what choices I make in the privacy of my doctor's office.

I just find it to be contradictory.  One thread speaks about the mother of a dying child going on the lam because her religious beliefs compel her to prevent the child from having chemotherapy.  In this thread, the majority of people talk about the rights of the child being protected by the state and how this woman is a vicious murderer.  Yet at least the 13-year-old does have a voice, and is not physically incapable of defending himself.  Unborn children are indefensible in every way imaginable, yet no one is wanting the government to speak up on their behalf.

I really just don't get it.

That 13-year-old is making a choice to skip chemo based on what his whackjob mother and the religions whackjobs she's aligned with tell him.... apparently, he cannot read and thus, cannot make informed choices for himself.  So while he may be physical capable of defending himself, he's doing so with the equivalent of a Dr. Seuss book, not medical accurate information.  That 13-year-old is a viable thinking, breathing, living human being whose life is already underway, not a fetus that is not viable and does not have a life and thus, is at the mercy of the decisions of its host (mother).

Please understand... I would be happy if no abortions were ever performed again.  But it's not my choice nor my decision to enforce that preference upon other people.  I also don't tell them what car to buy or how to cut their hair or when to put their loved one in a nursing home or when to pull the plug on a braindead family member.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Personal choice/personal freedom, as long another living, breathing person is not harmed.  And I don't consider a fetus to fall into that category.  It HAS no choice or personal freedom.

[cyberateos]

If a woman decides to use her genitalia to get pleasure from a minor, she is punished, because her right on her body has limits to protect a minor. If a woman decides to use her womb as an electric chair to kill a fetal minor, she has to be punished for that abuse too.

[Jolly Sapper]

If a woman decides to use her genitalia to get pleasure from a minor, she is punished, because her right on her body has limits to protect a minor. If a woman decides to use her womb as an electric chair to kill a fetal minor, she has to be punished for that abuse too.

??

Umm.. I don't know for sure, but it seems like most elective abortions aren't about wantonly killing/ending/stopping anything out of spite or anger.  

Now I can understand taking the personal stance of "I think elective abortions are wrong and I would not want to have an abortion" but I'm not so sure that it makes much sense to force that on anybody else.  Now you can counter with the "but your forcing that decision on a fetus/blastocyst/fertilized egg as yet unattached to the uterine wall, but that logic would mean that every nocturnal emission ( for us boys) or period (for girls) would be considered an elective abortion wouldn't it?

With cloning, technically its possible (though not probable) that every cell on your body can serve the purpose of sperm.  So what then? Am I committing an elective abortion by the millions every time I scratch my bum?

[newblueradio]

I'm curious why people on this forum talk about the body rights of women.  When a woman gets pregnant, can she not realize that the decision of her body is no longer just about her wants/desires?  Who speaks for the unborn child?  Why are they allowed to decide the fate of an entire life?  We've propped up our government to intervene all the time to prevent abuse to children already born, why do we not extend this to the unborn, who don't even have the ability to speak for themselves?

Why does the fetus/unborn child/collection of cells have more rights than the existing living/breathing individual with a functioning brain and life?  By all means, the fetus should have a chance to complete it's growth cycle... but it's not my place to say she HAS to let it happen within her own body.  Why don't YOU see that??  I am not a baby machine that can be turned on and turned off as the general public sees fit.  This is a MASSIVE grey area all the way around.  I support a woman's right to choose how she conducts business within her womb.  If she wishes to be paid to have sex with it, I support that.  If she wishes to sew it shut, I support that, too.  (NOTE I said if SHE wishes to do so... not the involuntary genital mutilation done in some countries... I chose that scenario to make a point, nothing more.)  I would also appreciate the same choice afforded me were I to choose to do something, too.  Having the government dictate what I can and can't do with my body is much the same as having the Christians tell me I'll go to hell for having sex before I marry.  Not their business what I do in my bedroom.  Not their business what choices I make in the privacy of my doctor's office.

I just find it to be contradictory.  One thread speaks about the mother of a dying child going on the lam because her religious beliefs compel her to prevent the child from having chemotherapy.  In this thread, the majority of people talk about the rights of the child being protected by the state and how this woman is a vicious murderer.  Yet at least the 13-year-old does have a voice, and is not physically incapable of defending himself.  Unborn children are indefensible in every way imaginable, yet no one is wanting the government to speak up on their behalf.

I really just don't get it.

That 13-year-old is making a choice to skip chemo based on what his whackjob mother and the religions whackjobs she's aligned with tell him.... apparently, he cannot read and thus, cannot make informed choices for himself.  So while he may be physical capable of defending himself, he's doing so with the equivalent of a Dr. Seuss book, not medical accurate information.  That 13-year-old is a viable thinking, breathing, living human being whose life is already underway, not a fetus that is not viable and does not have a life and thus, is at the mercy of the decisions of its host (mother).

Please understand... I would be happy if no abortions were ever performed again.  But it's not my choice nor my decision to enforce that preference upon other people.  I also don't tell them what car to buy or how to cut their hair or when to put their loved one in a nursing home or when to pull the plug on a braindead family member.  Do you see what I'm saying?  Personal choice/personal freedom, as long another living, breathing person is not harmed.  And I don't consider a fetus to fall into that category.  It HAS no choice or personal freedom.

To why they have more rights:  I don't see that they would have any more rights than the right to be allowed to live.  By giving all of the unborn child's rights to the mother to do as they see fit, that child no longer has any rights whatsoever.  I'm simply saying, if we exercise the defense of rights for born children, the ones who do have a voice and physical capacity to defend themselves to at least some extent (even if that defense is nothing more than crying out), then it seems oddly imbalanced to ignore the rights of the unborn child which is completely physically dependent.  That child was not asked to be born, nor was it asked to be terminated.  The people who scream so strongly for the body (see: collection of cells) rights of a woman tend to ignore the body (see: much smaller collection of cells) rights of the unborn child, or the fetus, as you so technically put it.

They wouldn't have more rights.  They would be afforded the right to live, which the mother exercises freely by being alive and conceiving the child in the first place.  There are many of those on this board who speak about personal responsibilities but when it comes to this one issue, it seems they take the back seat.  Why is this no less wrong than the Octomom who continually pumps out unwanted/unneeded babies?  Far more often than not, it isn't rape or life-threatening conditions that leads to abortions, so suggesting that these extremely rare circumstances should set the standard for thinking is intellectual dishonesty.

To the comment about being a baby machine:  I'm not sure where I suggested that you were any such thing, but any woman that continually gets pregnant just to end the pregnancies in abortion -- to me, would be no different than a serial killer.  Call it morals, call it ethics, call it whatever you like.  And if that's not what you're saying, then this comment seems out of place.

As to the rest, in one breath you suggest that this child doesn't have the capacity to make choices of his own yet you say that he is a thinking, breathing human being.  What is the criteria for survival, then?

The fact that they are on life-support (the womb)?  Should we slay all living beings in clinics/hospitals that are on life support?
The fact that they don't think for themselves (the neuron situation you keep referring to)?  Should we slay the brain-dead, the mentally retarded, people who suffer from crippling mental deficiencies?  All children below age 3?

Yes, unfortunately I fear that I do see what you are saying.  You are saying that because of some arbitrary definition, you do not account unborn children as having the right to exist.  You have plainly and rather coldly laid out terms for depriving human rights from a specific segment of the population.  You've chosen buzz words and scientific data to back up your claims as to why they are lesser forms of life and do not have the right to exist and, therefore, are not worthy of consideration.  That, my good friend, is called "elitism", and via other means of action in our world's history was also known as "racism" and "sexism".

It is a shame to see that any human being would willingly devalue another life, but ultimately that is your choice.  I just hope that your worldview in this particular instance never becomes the norm.

Edit:  One last thing.  Quoting you:  "I also don't tell them what car to buy or how to cut their hair or when to put their loved one in a nursing home or when to pull the plug on a braindead family member."

With the exception of the last two, these "decisions" do not involve or harm other people.  These comparisons are extremely dubious.  In addition -- #1 -- in the case of the nursing home, said loved one would most likely be consulted about this decision, something an unborn child could never be granted -- and #2 -- in the case of the braindead family member, at least they likely already had at least somewhat of a chance at life and are likely not going to survive, whereas an unborn child likely has a great chance for survival were they not being terminated.  These comparisons sadden me greatly.

[Jolly Sapper]

Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

[newblueradio]

Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

I'm very much willing to have an honest conversation about this topic, but I really don't appreciate the flame bait.  I know you may be on the defensive due to the original poster's behavior, but I'd appreciate being treated with dignity and respect until I give you reason not to do so.  And even then, I'm sure a quick slap to the back of my head will get me back on track in no time.  

[Jolly Sapper]

Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

I'm very much willing to have an honest conversation about this topic, but I really don't appreciate the flame bait.  I know you may be on the defensive due to the original poster's behavior, but I'd appreciate being treated with dignity and respect until I give you reason not to do so.  And even then, I'm sure a quick slap to the back of my head will get me back on track in no time.  

No seriously, this isn't trying to be flame bait.  If we're going to be giving a mass of cell rights to protect them from harm (because they cannot protect themselves), what legal rights does the woman get to protect herself from harm from everything from a fertilized egg to a fetus?

Or to take the opposite track, if abortion is something that should be illegal (and we are talking about illegal outright, not just restricted) because it harms a potential human being why not expand the legal protections of potential human beings to cover toxins emitted by factories, consumer/industrial products, or other accidents that might befall the potential human being or that potential human being's mother?

[rlrose328]

1:  I made the comment about being a baby machine as an example.  Never said you suggested it... I apologize if you feel I was suggesting you did.  It totally fits the discussion at hand.  

2.  And I never said that rape/mother's life endangered set the standard... they are the only instances in which I believe abortion should be completely and unquestionably legal.  For the record, I'm against abortion as a means of birth control.  I've said it before and I'll say it again when asked.  But that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.  My OPINION does not form LAW... it's merely MY OPINION.

3.  You are resorting to twisting my words, just like cyberateos did.  For the record, I do believe that Octomom has abused her right to bear children but ONLY because she has no means to pay for their existence and lied tremendously to the general public about her motives and her actions in order to gain sympathy.

4.  I am a mother.  I know what it was like to have a fetus inside, feel it grow, birth the resulting infant.  Yes, a fetus is a living thing, a human being in embryo form.  It doesn't think, however.  And I don't see where I said that a fetus is a "thinking, breathing, living human being."  I said that about the 13-year-old and I said that another "living, breathing person" should not be harmed.  I also followed that up by saying I don't believe that a fetus falls into that category.

5.  Just like cyberateos before you, you insist on bringing up the taking living beings off of life support and slaying braindead, mentally retarded people, etc.  You, my friend, are disgusting for even mentioning those things.  It is a sensationalistic method of debate.  YOu know damned well that I don't believe in doing ANY of those things.  And that's the last time I will comment on that here.  Let's keep to decent debate.

5.  I do account unborn children the right to exist.  I do not believe in depriving human rights from any segment of the population.  I really detest the sensational lengths to which anti-choice people will go in their arguments.  Elitist?  HAHA!  

6.  Finally, again, you sensationalize my statements, turning them into something they are not.  I was listing things that I wouldn't want to tell someone else to do.  That's all.  Period.  My POINT is that I'm not in the position to tell people what to think or what to believe or what to DO with their lives, bodies, or possessions.  And I find it frighteningly "1984" that you (and others LIKE you) DO want to tell people what to do in those respects.  

So now, please feel free to twist around all of this, sensationalize it and twist it into something demeaning and horrible.  Why is it that I can respect your argument (because on some level, we DO agree) but you insist on making me out to be a monster?

[rlrose328]

Newblueradio, so your argument is that because a fertilized egg has the potential to grow up into a human it should have the right to no be aborted correct?

What happens when the life of the fertilized egg causes the woman who carries it to be killed?  How do we try and sentence a mass of cells?  Would it be murder or just manslaughter?

I'm very much willing to have an honest conversation about this topic, but I really don't appreciate the flame bait.  I know you may be on the defensive due to the original poster's behavior, but I'd appreciate being treated with dignity and respect until I give you reason not to do so.  And even then, I'm sure a quick slap to the back of my head will get me back on track in no time.  :brick:  

[cyberateos]

Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

[PipeBox]

Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?

Why do you menction cases of threat to mother`s life, but not to elective abortions?

Why don`t you talk about a partial birth abortion due to a cleft palate?

I feel that you are desesperately searching cases with ATTENUANTING CIRCUMSTANCES and avoiding cases with AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.

These are your attenuating circumstances.  Partial birth abortions due to cleft palates are not common.  No one here is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortions, though some may be indifferent to them.  When you originally came here, we thought you were going to debate against abortion as it currently legally stands.  That's the only kind I'm defending, I know that much.  I'm not defending whatever strawmen you try to force on me.  I do not support baby rape, or 3rd trimester abortions or whatever else you can think of, unless I say otherwise.  My lines are clearly drawn.

I only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it.  This means that early term fetuses and terminally brain dead individuals could be terminated at the behest of their guardian.  For what it's worth, I also think suicide, that is, the termination of oneself, should be legalized, but that's a matter apart from this.

[cyberateos]

Pipebox:

These are your attenuating circumstances. Partial birth abortions due to cleft palates are not common.

So what? Cases of 9 year old raped girls with an anencephalic fetus are even less common, but are often menctioned as a dirty trick of abortionists.

No one here is trying to legalize 3rd trimester abortions, though some may be indifferent to them.

Let`s establish severe punishment for those cases.

When you originally came here, we thought you were going to debate against abortion as it currently legally stands. That's the only kind I'm defending, I know that much. I'm not defending whatever strawmen you try to force on me. I do not support baby rape, or 3rd trimester abortions or whatever else you can think of, unless I say otherwise. My lines are clearly drawn.

Why not to establish an International Civil Fetal Registration in the week 13?

I only think the law should legally allow the destruction of individuals who cannot think and are unresponsive to stimuli if and only if the person holding their medical power of attorney approves it. This means that early term fetuses and terminally brain dead individuals could be terminated at the behest of their guardian.

What if Terry Schiavo were easily recoverable, but her husband would order to kill her to get her house and her money to live with another woman?

For what it's worth, I also think suicide, that is, the termination of oneself, should be legalized, but that's a matter apart from this.

Are you saying that if a 13 year old boy has troubles with Mathematics, and wants to kill himself, I should let him be instead of helping him? Would not it be correct to give him psychological support?

[karadan]

Jolly:

Why do you refer to a "fertilized egg" but not to a full term fetus?  

Because full term fetuses do not get aborted - something which you've been told many, many times in this thread. Stop trolling and actually read the responses to your highly suspect posts.

No even sure why i bothered to respond. You obviously won't read it.

By the way, should i be sent to jail for scratching my chin? Afterall, i am killing collections of cells by doing so.

[SSY]

I want to know what makes the fetus an "unborn child". What is so special about this ball of cells as compared to a liver for instance?

The assertions of the anti-choice people in this thread all seem to be based on the fact that these balls of cells are people, define people, and how they meet this definition of people, then, maybe we can get somewhere in this discussion.


Edit; I'm going to help.  

Wiktionary says

person=A human being; an individual.

A human being=A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.

Do the people in this thread agree with these definitions so we can get somewhere with this? ( come to think of it, expecting a conclusion or even a reasoned debate might be a tall ask in this case. . .)